Music, technology groups agree on copyright plans

Associated Press | January 13, 2003 | TED BRIDIS

[HAL9000]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The music and technology industries, which have battled over consumers downloading music on the Internet, have negotiated a compromise to protect copyrighted works such as movies and songs without new government requirements, people familiar with the plan said Monday.

The agreement, expected to be announced Tuesday in Washington, contends that U.S. laws do not need to be amended, for example, to permit consumers to make backup copies of compact discs they purchase or copy songs onto handheld devices. The technology industry also will announce its support for aggressive enforcement against digital pirates.

Under the plan, future generations of entertainment devices won't be required by law to have locking controls that make it more difficult to copy digital entertainment. Technology companies have complained that the locking devices are too expensive and complex.

The deal attempts to heads off government intervention in the rising debate over what consumers can do with copyrighted material they have purchased.

The agreement was negotiated among the Recording Industry Association of America, the Business Software Alliance and the Computer Systems Policy Project. The software alliance's members include Microsoft, Apple Computer Inc. and Adobe Systems Inc.; the policy project is made up of chief executives from IBM, Intel, Hewlett-Packard and Dell.

Officials with those organizations declined Monday to discuss the agreement in any detail, except saying they had achieved "landmark consensus." Industry executives and others described its provisions on condition of anonymity for The Associated Press.

Notably absent from the new copyright agreement was the Motion Picture Association of America, which has aggressively supported new government requirements for built-in locking controls on new devices, such as DVD recorders. A spokesman for the group declined Monday to comment until after the agreement was formally announced.

The agreement could affect a controversial bill by Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, D-S.C., that would prohibit the manufacture or distribution of "digital media devices" -- such as handheld music players -- unless they include government-approved copy restriction technology. The bill's passage has been in doubt since the 2002 election, since Hollings lost the chairmanship of the Commerce Committee when Republicans won the majority in the Senate.

The agreement also could affect efforts such as those by Reps. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., and Rick Boucher, R-Va., to allow consumers to make backup copies of music or movies and use copies on different devices. Lofgren, for example, wants permission for consumers to sell or give away copies of music or movies they purchase, and to impose protections for consumers who break locking controls that violate these rights.

Boucher said Monday that he was told by executives at Intel that the company supports both the new agreement and his bill, which would require copy-protected music CDs to be labeled, among other things. Boucher said he believes that means the new agreement is "not inconsistent" with his bill.

Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., praised the agreement for helping to overcome what he said was the "growing rift" between the music and technology industries.

"I hope the rest of the creative and technological communities get on board with a unifying message and ... we can tone down the divisive rhetoric that has otherwise predominated many copyright and technology debates," Berman said in a statement.

[Bush2000]

How is the scenario I described 'capitalism'? I don't see how forcing restrictive and unnecessary DRM garbage onto all computer hardware and software that will increase prices and reduce consumer and business choice goes along well with 'capitalism'.

Companies have a right to protect their intellectual property -- their capital. It's the heart of capitalism.

[Bush2000]

Maybe in a soft economy price matters when the quality is not must have stuff.

Let's call a spade a spade: If you download copyrighted music, you're a thief. Why mince words?

[FreeTally]

By the way if the music industry is in such good health artisticly speaking, why are ratings dropping and why is MTV showing fewer music videos? Sliding demand for poor quality?

I'm not sure what you mean by "ratings dropping". I dont consider the ratings of awards shows to be an indicator, especially in this era of reality shows which can grab a quick market share. Before the proliferation of such shows, many people may have just watched certain awards shows because there was "nothing else on".

As for MTv, that shift started in the mid 1990's. MTv just started other networks to play videos. Their original shows were decent at first, and many were "musically oriented". They had skecth comedies from the late 1980's on("The State" was hilarious) Now, they have just lead the way in "reality" programming which seems to interest people of all ages and intellects.

I am not even going to argue that the quality of "popular music" continues to nosedive, but it was just as bad in the late 1990's when the NSYNC's, Brittany, etc were selling 10 million+. But is Shakira anything different than that stuff? No. Is John Mayer that different than Dave Mathews Band? No. Its just been re-packaged.

[Bush2000]

What companies are rummaging around on your computer, troll?

[Dimensio]

Companies have a right to protect their intellectual property -- their capital. It's the heart of capitalism.

So they have a right to use force of law to put unnecessary restrictions on my personal electronic devices just in case I might use these devices to violate their intellectual copyrights, even though those restrictions have much broader implications that would severly restrict activity that is perfectly legal?

You really do like the idea of corporate armies enforcing corporate law, don't you?

[Right Wing Professor]

If you download copyrighted music, you're a thief. Why mince words?

I dunno, why do you mince words?

If you downloaded copyrighted music, you have deprived nobody of the use of that music. Therefore it is not theft.

[Dimensio]

Bah, you communist. Fortunately, when Fritz's bill is purchased passed criminals like you will be forced to give up your anti-capitalistic 'open source' operating systems in favour of a far more expensive operating system bloated with unnecessary DRM restrictions to prevent you from doing things that you would never have done anyway.

[Right Wing Professor]

No, he likes the idea of the state enforcing the Diktat of his particular oligarchy. Any company can use any technological means at its disposal to prevent others from copying what it sells. And, by and large, the technology is highly effective. But they know that if they do so, consumers will tend to purchase less intrusive technology, and so they want the state to enforce the restrictions on everyone.

[Bush2000]

If you downloaded copyrighted music, you have deprived nobody of the use of that music. Therefore it is not theft.

Specious "logic". You could't have listened to the music unless you purchased it. And, since the file is on your hard drive, you have no reason to purchase it; therefore, you deprived the record company and the artist of a sale.

[Bush2000]

None, bush. I run linux exclusively.

Then your correct was a bunch of nonsense.

[Bush2000]

No, he likes the idea of the state enforcing the Diktat of his particular oligarchy.

Unclever euphemism for "intellectual property holders".

[Right Wing Professor]

Unclever euphemism for "intellectual property holders".

No. Pretty much everyone is an 'intellectual property holder'; that is, the state grants all of us certain rights of copyright. Those rights are limited and non-absolute; they exist only to encourage innovation. Unfortunately, the software/music/movie cabal is busy at work expanding the duration and scope of copyright beyond any reasonable expectation that it encourage innovation, and lobbying for the passage of laws that infringe on much more fundamental rights in order to enforce this outrageously expanded copyright protection.

I mean, if I quote 1000 words of Shakespeare, it's not 'theft', by your definition. If I quote 1000 words of last night's CBS news, it is 'theft'. Theft, by your definition, is only theft when you steal new stuff. That's rather an odd kind of 'theft', no?

[Right Wing Professor]

And, since the file is on your hard drive, you have no reason to purchase it; therefore, you deprived the record company and the artist of a sale.

By not mailing Barbra Streisand $100 right now, I've deprived her of $100. Therefore, I've stolen $100 from Babs.

[Leto]

Another factor is the music vides themselves. a ;ot pf pop music has turned into video more than music, the kids get it for free on MTV.

The production quality is poor and the MP#'s or the song on radio aren't of appreciable poorer quality than the cd's themselves.

[Bush2000]

I mean, if I quote 1000 words of Shakespeare, it's not 'theft', by your definition. If I quote 1000 words of last night's CBS news, it is 'theft'. Theft, by your definition, is only theft when you steal new stuff. That's rather an odd kind of 'theft', no?

You have a weak understanding of copyright law. Copyrights expire, usually after the death of the author. Shakespeare has been dead for centuries; therefore, his work entered the public domain. CBS News retains their copyright for some period of time.

You do have a right to "fair use" of a work; however, "fair use" is limited to excerpts of a work (not large portions of or the entire work) for academic or non-profit purposes. Thus, it would be possible for you to quote from last night's CBS News without violating their copyright provided that you abide by "fair use" guidelines.

[Bush2000]

By not mailing Barbra Streisand $100 right now, I've deprived her of $100. Therefore, I've stolen $100 from Babs.

Sigh. The data on your hard drive has an inherent value. Not mailing a check has no value.

[Right Wing Professor]

I'll add that if you were consistent, you'd never be posting to FR; this site, many times daily, goes well beyond 'fair use'. Do you stop reading all articles at 200 words or 10 percent, whichever is less? And if not, where do you get off lecturing others about 'theft'?

In fact, the article on which this thread is based is clearly not 'fair use' under US law.

[Bush2000]

In fact, the article on which this thread is based is clearly not 'fair use' under US law.

This site has been sued by (if memory serves me) the Washington Post and other publications for violating fair use guidelines. It's banned from posting entire articles from those news sources.